The end of the 107th Congress marks the end of my decade as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and this is also the last column I will be writing as your congressman (although our Lakewood office will remain open until Dec. 31).

Leaving Congress is an event I view with many emotions -- especially gratitude for the high honor of serving and satisfaction with specific accomplishments. But among the emotions I do not feel are the anger, disappointment and bitterness voiced by many people as they leave public life. Indeed, I would like to use this opportunity to say thank you.

Thank you to the thousands of people who have called, written, or come to a meeting during the past 10 years. Whether we agreed or disagreed, I learned from every conversation and every letter. It is both inspiring and humbling to realize the amount of common sense, and the number of good ideas, that are possessed by the American people. I also want to say thank you to the members of the media for 10 years of accurate coverage. Although politicians of both the right and the left often charge the media with bias, I have found that almost all reporters are interested in getting the facts straight and being fair.

No U.S. representative gets anything done without the help of an able staff. I have been blessed with outstanding aides who have worked to help the nation and the people of the 38th District. The Washington staff, under the fine leadership of first Jim Dykstra and currently Dave Bartel has shepherded legislation through both Houses of Congress and fought hard to promote the interests of our area.

Their work saved the Air Force's C-17 project that represents thousands of jobs in our area -- and that has performed so well, including on recent missions in Afghanistan. We secured the federal funding for the Alameda Corridor that allowed the project to be completed on time and on budget. Then we gained the federal funds to complete -- five years ahead of schedule -- the flood control project along the Los Angeles River which lifted the flood insurance mandate on tens of thousands of property owners. The staff also delivered on dozens of other projects ranging from freeway improvements and enhancements at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, to a ZIP code for Signal Hill and grants for educational institutions such as California State University, Long Beach.

The district office in Lakewood has been ably led by the dedicated and energetic Connie Martinez Sziebl. She and her staff have worked tirelessly to help thousands of residents who had problems with the federal bureaucracy -- everything from missing Social Security checks to incorrect flood insurance premiums.

The achievements of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, which I have chaired since 1995, would have been impossible without the talented staff led for seven years by J. Russell George and now by Bonnie Heald. The subcommittee has focused on the nitty-gritty issues of saving a buck and making things run better. It's major legislative achievement is the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, which has saved $14 billion in taxpayer dollars by better collection of debts owed to the government. Through hundreds of investigative hearings, the subcommittee also spearheaded the successful effort to deal with the year 2000 (Y2K) computer conversion, and made a major effort to improve both the financial management of the federal government and its computer security.

Heartfelt thanks are also owed to the voters of this district and the hundreds of people who volunteered on five hard- fought campaigns. Led by Anne Cramer, Steve Conley, Marcia Horn and Steve Horn, Jr., we proved that you can win by running all-volunteer campaigns and without taking Political Action Committee (PAC) money -- if you have solid local support and treat the voters intelligently.

Finally, there are two other thank yous -- one personal, the other general. The personal thank you is to my wife of 48 years, Nini, who has volunteered in the Washington office for the past decade and helped thousands of constituents. The general thank you is the people who protect us at home -- our police and firefighters -- and to the members of our armed forces who protect us around the world.

As we gather with our families and give thanks for our many blessings this week, let us also say a special prayer for these brave men and women who endure hard conditions and are willing, at a moment's notice, to make the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Stephen P. Horn, Ph.D, scholar, university president, expert in government efficiency, political reformer and member of the Congress of the United States, is coming home. His work is done.

It would not be done if his constituents had anything to say about it. Congressman Horn, as residents of his district know all too well, got gerrymandered out of his seat by partisan deal-makers who care more about political ease than equity; otherwise the office likely was his as long as he wanted it.

More than a few voters, Republican or Democrat or whatever, would have put him in the race for governor if they'd had the chance, and by any reckoning he would have been the best candidate. He also would have been the most unusual.

Horn knows governance as a political scientist, a historian and a politician: in theory, in fact, in context and in reality. Yet he always approached governance as an idealist: responding, often personally, to the most mundane pleas of his constituents; assigning himself the unglamorous but fruitful task of overseeing government efficiency; and refusing to accept "soft" money, thereby risking his political career at every election as a matter of principle.

Soft money, as probably few of his constituents really understood, is the most corruptive influence in our noble but vulnerable system of government. Soft money also lends itself to no easy remedy. Therefore soft money has few real opponents among politicians, and even fewer who refuse to collect it.

That is so like Horn. He is fully able intellectually and emotionally to manage the human as well as the practical challenges of government, but he never takes the easy way unless it is also the right way. For that, he has willingly paid a price.

When he served as president of Cal State University, from 1970 to 1988, it was somewhat the same. Horn was unyielding in his determination to raise that institution from its modest beginnings as a teachers' college to an academic status previously unimagined. His efforts caused serious damage to relations with his faculty, but he got the job done.

Some of the problems with faculty were Horn's fault. Nobody's perfect. But whatever his faults, they have nothing to do with his personal relationships. Among the thousands who eagerly volunteered to help him at the university and later in his political work, none were more lovingly dedicated than his gracious wife of 48 years, Nini; and the steadfast manager of his campaigns, Steve Horn Jr. As for his staff members, as a letter to the editor on this page suggests, they adore him.

If you haven't had the good fortune to get acquainted personally with Steve (as he likes to be known, despite all his pedigrees), you might like to read his last column, which appears on the facing page. You will find, without surprise, that it is an honest account. If you have had the good fortune to know him well, you probably will find something closer to your heart.

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

Is it your constitutional right to have babies and not support them? That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

David Oakley lives in Wisconsin and has fathered nine children with four different women. Most of the kids live in poverty, and Oakley owes at least $25,000 in child support.

After years of shirking his responsibilities, the Wisconsin courts finally got tough with Oakley, and the judge sentenced him to eight years in prison, but downgraded the sentence to parole if Oakley would agree not to father anymore children as a condition of that parole.

To stay out of jail, Oakley agreed. But then Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe came riding in on his big constitutional horse. Tribe, who represented Al Gore in the election mess, argued to a Wisconsin supreme court that Oakley's rights were being violated and that the state did not justify its need to bar Oakley from having any more children.

The court ruled against Tribe and Oakley. The four male judges siding with the state. But incredibly, the three female judges sided with Oakley. They were fine with having him father as many children as he wanted without paying for them.

Counselor Tribe and the three ladies apparently believe that you and I are responsible for supporting all of Oakley's children, since he will not. Tribe believes the Constitution mandates that all irresponsible procreative behavior is to be accepted by the state.

And I agree. Are you shocked? I don't think the government should be regulating procreation. That is what the Chinese do in a very brutal way. However, the state has a perfect right to charge David Oakley and every other deadbeat parent with child neglect, imprison them, and seek a stable situation for their children.

If the states did that, you would have far fewer Oakleys running around impregnating foolish women. The Supreme Court has refused to hear the case, thereby upholding the judge's ruling. Oakley cannot impregnate anyone else or he goes to jail.

Now I'm fine with that as well, although it does pinch the Constitution a bit. Far better would be to criminally prosecute neglectful parents early on. Hold those that abandon and abused kids extremely accountable.

What is absolutely appalling is the attitude of the Lawrence Tribes of the world, who do not offer viable solutions to crimes against children, and use the Constitution to try to undermine accountability for people like Oakley.

As we saw in the Milwaukee murder of Charlie Young, neglected children can do a great damage to this country. It is way past time to hold the David Oakleys and Laurence Tribes of the world accountable for subverting our society.

And that's The Memo.

Jasmine Lee, DAILY BREEZE, 09-28-02

Despite a last-minute lobbying effort by South Bay and statewide supporters, Gov. Gray Davis on Friday vetoed a bill that would have allowed some men to dispute paternity with a DNA test after they are ordered to pay child support.

Davis acknowledged that something should be done to curb the growing problem of paternity fraud, but he said Assembly Bill 2240 would only delay the legal process of collecting child support payments and provide a loophole for biological fathers trying to shirk parental responsibilities.

Davis also said if the bill became law, the state might not meet federal requirements on collecting child support payments, putting California at risk of losing $40 million in federal funds.

"I recognize that paternity fraud is a serious issue and has the potential of damaging an individual’s livelihood," Davis wrote in a veto message. "However, AB 2240 is flawed in its attempt to address the issue."

Carson resident Bert Riddick, a paternity fraud victim profiled in a Daily Breeze article in July, said Davis was missing the big picture. He called the governor’s claims about losing money "smoke and mirrors."

Riddick protested that truth — not federal funds — is what’s at stake. He said the system lies to children about paternity and allows mothers to falsely name men as fathers. "What message are we sending to our children?" he asked.

Even though a DNA test excluded him as a biological father, Riddick pays $1,400 a month to support the daughter of an ex-girlfriend. Because a court summons was not properly served, he missed his day in court and a default judgment was entered against him.

AB 2240 could have allowed Riddick to use the DNA evidence to dispute the paternity claim.

Riddick had organized a grass-roots, call-in campaign to urge Davis to sign the bill and remained optimistic until he learned of the veto Friday afternoon. For years, Riddick worked along and with such groups as the American Coalition for Fathers & Children and the California chapter of Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, to get the bill before the governor.

Assemblyman Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles, author of AB 2240, also sent a letter urging Davis to sign the bill. Cine Ivery, the district director for Wright’s Los Angeles office, said the assemblyman is disappointed, but he did not immediately have a comment.

Opponents of the bill called the veto a victory for children.

"We agree there are paternity fraud issues and that the system is not working 100 percent," said Lupe Alonzo-Diaz, senior policy advocate for the San Diego-based Children’s Advocacy Institute. "But we’re glad that the governor put children first."

The National Organization for Women and the Oakland-based National Center for Youth Law also spoke against AB 2240.

Wright’s bill would have required process servers to personally hand a court summons to men named in civil cases for child support. Servers now can mail or leave a summons at a last known residential or business address. Also, men who had already been ordered to pay child support through a default judgment — which means they did not appear in court to dispute paternity charges — would have been able to challenge paternity with a DNA test.

In his veto message, Davis directed the state Department of Child Support Services to work with the Legislature and lobbyists on both sides of the issue to find ways to address paternity fraud.

Alonzo-Diaz said she can see flaws in a system that forces men to pay for children who are not theirs. More than 70 percent of Los Angeles County men who pay child support were ordered to do so by default judgment.

However, the Children’s Advocacy Institute was concerned about AB 2240 because it did not provide money for the child’s food, school supplies and other needs while proof of paternity was pending. Alonzo-Diaz also pointed out that a man could claim he is not a biological parent, and then a test could conclude he is the father.

Also, parenthood is more than just DNA, she said.

"Biology is not the one factor that makes a father," Alonzo-Diaz said.

Riddick, married with an 11-year-old son and daughters ages 6 and 3, wondered who would advocate for his children.

"I wish (Davis) would come to my house and tell my son why he can’t sign this bill," he said.

He challenged Davis to explain to his son, Azriel, why Riddick must pay for another child at the expense of his own children.

But, he said, the fight is not over. Riddick said he will continue to lobby to reform paternity fraud and has even considered running for the state Legislature.

"I’m not going anywhere," he said. "It’s not over."

Publish Date:September 28, 2002

GARY GENTILE, AP Business Writer, 09-14-02

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Billionaire Kirk Kerkorian's ex-wife was awarded an additional $316 a month in child support Friday, a pittance compared to the $270,000-a-month increase she had sought.

The 84-year-old studio mogul had already agreed to pay $50,000 a month to support 4-year-old Kira. But her mother, Lisa Bonder Kerkorian, argued the girl needed $320,000 a month to continue living her ex-husband's lifestyle of private jet flights, expensive hotel accommodations and lavish parties.

Judge Lee Edmon called the estimates "incredible" and a "disguised form of spousal support."

The 37-year-old ex-wife said she would appeal. She said the judge "severely underestimated" the cost it takes to maintain her daughter in a lifestyle Kerkorian created for her.

Dennis Wasser, a lawyer representing Kerkorian, said he was pleased "that the judge, instead of accepting the fantasy world presented by Lisa Kerkorian, followed the law and the facts and ruled on the basis of common sense."

Edmon said Kira "is entitled to live a luxurious lifestyle" but is not entitled to private jet travel. Other items the judge threw out as "grossly exceeding the reasonable needs of the child" included $300,000 for six parties per year and $6,000 per month for house flowers.

The judge did award Bonder Kerkorian $2,400 per month for Kira's equestrian activities and $1,400 per month for French lessons, ballet lessons and other extracurricular activities.

Kerkorian and Bonder Kerkorian, a former tennis pro, had a 10-year romantic relationship but were married for only a month, in 1999.

Although her attorneys originally claimed Kerkorian was Kira's natural father, Bonder Kerkorian recently admitted she faked the DNA paternity test by using saliva she obtained from Kerkorian's adult daughter.

Kerkorian has said he is willing to support the child even though he is not the biological father.

Kerkorian is worth an estimated $4.5 billion according to the most recent Forbes magazine list, released Friday.

He is the majority shareholder in the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer movie studio and MGM Mirage Inc., which owns several Las Vegas Strip hotels.

WENDY WENDLAND-BOWYER, FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER, 09-16-02

Each week, $63 from John Ruff's paycheck goes toward child support for a daughter he didn't father, being raised by an ex-girlfriend he no longer sees.

Ruff said years ago, when his ex-girlfriend told him she was pregnant with his child, he believed her. He signed paternity papers, started paying child support and regularly saw the child.

But when Ruff heard rumors the child was not his, he got a DNA test. The result: He wasn't the dad.

Ruff presented this proof to an Oakland County judge. He thought it was enough to stop child support payments and to be removed from legal documents.

He was wrong.

"I hate to say it, but the whole part where I went wrong was the part where I tried to stand up and be a man and take responsibility for what I thought was my daughter," said Ruff, 29, who had lived in Ortonville. He has since married and moved to Grand Rapids.

"I should have been a jerk and tried to protest what she was saying."

Just as DNA has freed inmates imprisoned for crimes they did not commit, it should also free men from financial support for children they did not father, Ruff and others say.

In Michigan and many other states, legislators are considering laws to do just that.

Last year, the state House passed a package of bills that would permit people to get out of paying child support when a child is not biologically theirs. The bills also permit the cancellation of child support arrearages in such cases and penalize mothers who fraudulently say a man fathered their baby.

The bills sat in the state Senate Committee on Families, Mental Health and Human Services since then because of mostly legal concerns, said Amy Zaagman, chief of staff for committee Chairwoman Sen. Beverly Hammerstrom, R-Temperance.

Zaagman said her boss is not against the concept of the bills but has several legal concerns. For instance, when a man who is not married signs paternity papers, he waives his right to a DNA test. If the man has any doubts, he should raise them then, not years later, Zaagman said.

Also, one bill allows the man to stop paying child support but keep parenting time with the child.

"Where is the best interest of the children in all this?" said Zaagman. "Here's someone who had a relationship with the child, established some responsibility for the child . . . yet now he doesn't want to be responsible anymore but wants parenting time? How does that benefit the child?"

Dr. Damon Adams, a dentist from Traverse City, is leading the push for the bills. Adams said the bills are in children's best interest because kids have a right to the truth and should know their medical history.

"When something like this happens, the best way to heal is for the truth to come out," he said.

Adams knows firsthand about the problem. Shortly after his marriage of 25 years ended, he discovered he did not beget his fourth child, who was 8 at the time.

"It was the worst feeling I've ever had to go through in my life," Adams said. "It felt like a death."

Adams, too, presented the DNA evidence in his case to a judge but was told he had to continue paying child support. He said he pays more than $18,000 a year.

The current legal system is based on 500 years of common law that gave children born within a marriage the right to claim the man in the marriage as their father, said Christi Goodman, program manager for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

But as society changed, and it became more common for children to be born outside of marriage, the laws were adjusted. More effort was made by the government to establish paternity and get single men to take responsibility for their children.

DNA testing didn't become accurate until about five to eight years ago, Goodman said. Then, men who suspected a child was not theirs suddenly had a way to prove it.

Now, many of these men are finding out that DNA evidence may not be enough. So they're demanding that laws be changed, Goodman said.

"It is causing a public stir," she said.

In Michigan, one of the groups to oppose the bills is the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan.

Chairwoman Meri Anne Stowe said she can sympathize with men who are married and later discover a child is not biologically theirs. But Stowe said she is even more concerned about the children in these cases, who know only that man as "Dad."

"We don't want to illegitimize a whole class of children, and we don't want to impoverish a whole class of children," Stowe said. "We have to look at the greater good."

In Ruff's case, the girl he was told is his daughter was 4 when he had the DNA test done. Ruff told Oakland County Judge John McDonald that he had been deceived by his ex-girlfriend, presented the DNA evidence and said he only signed the paternity papers because he thought the girl was his.

But court records show McDonald didn't believe him. Rather, he believed the ex-girlfriend who told him that Ruff knew all along the child wasn't his but told her he wanted to raise the girl as his own.

Ruff said he hasn't seen the girl, who is now 8, since 1998. Ruff said he has paid $26,000 in child support. He said he would like to start a family with his wife but fears he can't afford it.

"I've done everything I could do to get this decision reversed," Ruff said. "But I'm not about to give up."

Four bills that relate to paternity fraud will come up for testimony before a state Senate committee later this month. They are House bills 4635, 4636, 4637 and 4638.

Bowing to pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union, Lawrence County judges yesterday released 37 defendants who had been jailed without hearings for not paying court-ordered child support.

Philip Boudewyns, Lawrence County court administrator, said all those in Lawrence County who were incarcerated for nonsupport after being held in civil contempt were released on orders of President Judge Ralph D. Pratt.

"After the president judge reviewed the cases of these 37 individuals, he decided to release them in order to maintain their civil liberties," Boudewyns said yesterday.

He said the nonsupport cases will be referred back to the county's domestic relations office, where attorneys can file new civil contempt charges against the defendants if they believe charges are warranted.

If new charges are filed, Boudewyns said, the cases will be handled under revised procedures. Each defendant will be brought before a judge for a hearing, where he can either clear himself of the contempt or offer explanations for being in arrears with payments. In the past, defendants in child support disputes in Lawrence County were being jailed without hearings or access to legal counsel.

Court officials immediately notified Witold Walczak, executive director of the Pittsburgh ACLU chapter, who had threatened to sue them for violating the constitutional rights of the men in the nonsupport cases.

"This is an essential first step to keep this dispute out of litigation, and we are pleased that the judges are taking it," said Walczak, who visited Lawrence County last week to discuss the county's methods for handling support issues.

He said an unresolved issue is whether Lawrence County judges will appoint lawyers to handle civil contempt issues involving child support. When he met with the judges last week, Walczak told them the law is clear in that anyone facing imprisonment is constitutionality entitled to a lawyer in civil and criminal procedures.

Boudewyns said the judges still are reviewing that issue. Until their review is complete, he said, no lawyers will be appointed for defendants who are accused of not paying child support.

BUSINESS WIRE, 08- 29-02

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 29, 2002--The American Payroll Association will hold a joint press conference with federal and state child support officials Tuesday, Sept. 3 to acknowledge National Payroll Week and the impact of employer participation in the child support enforcement system.

The conference will take place at 10 a.m. in the Central Office of the Virginia Department of Social Services, 730 E. Broad St. in Richmond, Va.

"Employers understand that they play a key role in ensuring that families get the child support funds to which they are entitled," said Dan Maddux, Executive Director of the 21,000-member American Payroll Association.

In addition to Maddux, the press conference will feature Virginia Secretary of Health and Human Resources Jane H. Woods, Social Services Deputy Commissioner and Director of Child Support Enforcement Nick Young, and Dr. Sherri Heller, Commissioner of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. The conference will feature a tour of the Virginia State Disbursement Center, which processes the child support monies employers collect.

State child support performance is monitored closely by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, which can have a bearing on the level of funding a state child support office receives. In FY 2000, the most recent year for which data is available, child support agencies jointly collected $18 billion. Nearly two out of every three child support dollars was collected via wage withholding.

In Virginia alone, employers are responsible for the collection of child support for more than one quarter of the children in the state, according to state officials. In FY 2002, income withholding by employers from employee paychecks accounted for $372 million or 75 percent of the record $474 million collected in child support.

Under federal law, employers play a key role in child support enforcement, performing two vital functions:

• Promptly reporting new hires and rehires to state child support offices, and

• Processing wage withholding or medical support orders sent by state child support offices, courts or other entities.

The APA is a professional association committed to the efficient and cost-effective implementation of the payroll process.

APA's more than 21,000 members perform payroll processing services for individual companies, although APA also represents many companies that provide payroll-related services or are vendors of payroll-related products. To help protect the quality and integrity of the payroll process, APA trains approximately 18,000 professionals on tax compliance, garnishment administration and other payroll-related topics. APA also works closely with federal, state and local government agencies and lawmakers to ensure that payroll-related policies are administrable and cost effective for employers. APA offices are located in San Antonio, Texas, New York and Washington, DC. There are also more than 110 local chapters located around the country.

Collectively, the defendants owe around $5 million, authorities said. All were at least one year late in making payments and officials said many have not made a payment in several years.

He was released on a $100,000 bond. His case will be tried in Philadelphia, prosecutors said.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Dozens of America's most wanted "deadbeat" parents, including a former pro football player, have been arrested this week in a nationwide crackdown on people who chronically default on child support payments, a federal official announced on Wednesday.

Teams of federal and state authorities rounded up 61 deadbeat parents in 25 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico and are pursing 41 others, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said.

"These parents have a demonstrated ability to meet their financial responsibilities to their children, but they have consistently refused to provide the support they owe," Thompson said in a statement.

Among those taken into custody were former professional football player James E. Harris, who finished his National Football League career with the Oakland Raiders in 1999, said Katherine Harris, an HHS spokeswoman.

The former football player earned more than $1 million in each of the two years he spent with the Raiders, the spokeswoman said. He currently owns a housing development corporation in Missouri and is $103,000 in arrears in child support payments, according to the Health and Human Services department.

Harris could not be reached for comment.

HHS said others arrested in the sweep include an Oklahoma sheet metal worker who has not made a child support payment in 16 years and now owes $297,000; a Florida pharmacist who owes $63,000 and a Texas car salesman who has crossed state lines and quit several jobs to avoid paying child support.

The 102 defaulters sought in the sweep collectively owe more than $5 million in child support, the statement said.

Thompson said they were among the most "egregious offenders" from cases referred by state agencies to federal authorities for investigation.

HHS spokeswoman Harris said the sweep for child support defaulters, which began on Monday, is the largest such effort since the federal agency launched a special enforcement program four years ago.

"It's a high priority for the department because it's a question of responsibility and what is right," Harris said of the need to crackdown on those who routinely miss child support payments. "Children suffer because of this," she said.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hours after making big business more liable to the public, Congress also moved toward making it more difficult for Americans to escape overwhelming debt through bankruptcy protection.

"In these hard economic times, while we're dealing with corporate responsibility, we should also address personal responsibility," GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said.

After arguing for five years, House and Senate negotiators finally came to an agreement Thursday on a compromise bill that would make it tougher to get credit card and other debts forgiven in bankruptcy court.

White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer praised the agreement. "The president looks forward to signing that," Fleischer said.

The legislation had been stalled all year over a Democratic demand for a provision ensuring that abortion protesters who are sued successfully may not use bankruptcy laws to avoid payment. But with the new agreement, lawmakers planned to put the bill on the fast track before going home for the summer.

The Republican-controlled House was expected to take the bankruptcy bill up Friday, GOP aides said.

How quickly it would move through the Democratic-controlled Senate was uncertain, but "we have worked hard for a year to make this a better and more balanced bill, and we have succeeded," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation applies a new standard for determining whether people filing for bankruptcy should be forced to repay debts under court-approved reorganization plans rather than having them dissolved. If a debtor is found to have sufficient income to repay at least 25 percent of the debt over five years or has at least the median income for his or her state, a reorganization plan generally would be required.

Under the current system, it is usually left to a bankruptcy judge or a private attorney appointed by the Justice Department to decide whether someone qualifies for dissolution of debts or should be forced to repay under a reorganization plan.

The credit card industry, which claims millions of dollars in losses a year from bankrupt consumers, has long lobbied for changes in the bankruptcy laws.

"At long last, we'll be able to close loopholes exploited by big spenders who have the ability to repay their debts and better protect consumers who have been left to pay higher prices for goods and services as a result," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

Opponents charged that, particularly in a sagging economy, the measure would remove a crucial safety net for people who have lost their jobs or face huge medical bills, as well as for single mothers seeking child support from bankrupt fathers.

Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., one of its leading opponents, likely will try to stop the bill by saying tens of thousands of people have lost their retirement savings and jobs since the Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc., accounting scandals became public.

"This bill is a dastardly one for consumers, especially in these economic times," Wellstone spokeswoman Allison Dobson said. "It should be embarrassing for people to vote for this."

The provision holding up the bill was targeted at violent abortion protesters. It would prohibit people who attack or block access to abortion clinics from declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying court-ordered fines.

A GOP aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Republicans succeeded in limiting the provision to only people who intentionally or knowingly violate the law.

The Social Security system is a crucial part of every American's retirement plan and it is an issue that demands the bipartisan attention and cooperation of the President and Congress. All of us must be committed to finding solutions to ensure the long-term solvency of our nation's retirement system.

As elected representatives, Members of Congress have a responsibility to see that the government lives up to its end of the bargain with the American people. This requires balancing the budget and that is the course we are pursuing. Over the past two years, the budget not only balanced, but showed surpluses for the first time in 30 years. This surplus marks an end to deficit spending and is the first vital step toward restoring the financial and fiscal health of the government. In fact, over the past two years, we have paid down the publicly-held national debt by about $131 billion.

In the new budget for fiscal year 2000, Congress established the principle that all money paid into the Social Security Trust Fund will be reserved for Social Security recipients, now and in the future. That is a solid sound step forward and one we must repeat in every budget of the future.

The health of our economy offers us a unique opportunity to consider options to reform Social Security that go beyond the old solutions of either raising already-high payroll taxes or reducing benefits and cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for seniors. We have an opportunity to consider fundamental changes in the system which give the American people better retirement options and greater financial security.

In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton outlined his general proposal to reform Social Security, dedicating a sizable portion of the surplus to shore up Social Security, coupled with government investment of Social Security funds in the securities markets. While many expressed concern with his proposal, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, I and many of my colleagues were pleased that the President has offered a plan on Social Security. I hope he will refine his proposals and offer specific legislation in this Congress.

The Social Security trustees have advised that the President and Congress must start working on the problem now, when the solution is relatively painless. The trustees warn that bigger changes will be required if action is delayed.

We are faced with a difficult situation. By 2013, Social Security spending will exceed revenues. Keeping the current system would require either higher payroll taxes or lower benefits. I do not believe either one of these provides a real solution. Social Security payroll taxes are already too high -- some 71 percent of United States workers now pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. A continuation of the status quo does nothing to restructure the program and provide protection to today's beneficiaries and tomorrow's retirees.

The aging of the baby boom generation, nearly 76 million strong, will create severe financial pressures on the system. This generation is the largest in American history and has had relatively few children. This low birth rate means there will be fewer workers to pay for the retirement benefits of our aging population. And as this generation and the ones after it continue to live longer, they will draw on benefits for many more years than the system anticipated.

It is my belief that the system can be reformed to ensure solvency, maintain benefits for current recipients, and provide retirement security for future retirees through the next century. In order to accomplish this, however, Congress and the President must work together and make some fundamental decisions soon about the future of Social Security. I personally support allowing more flexibility and involvement for individuals. Congress must carefully review proposals offered by the President and others for creating individual accounts and determine if that is a workable approach for future retirees. However, any solution must protect current retirees and provide greater retirement security for future retirees.

A 43-year-old Paradise Hills man, reportedly depressed about a court ruling on overdue child support, fatally shot himself early yesterday on the steps of the downtown San Diego courthouse.

The man was identified as Derrick K. Miller Sr., of Alta View Drive, a spokeswoman for the Medical Examiner's Office said.

Witnesses told police that Miller, carrying court documents, walked up to a security guard at the entrance to the courthouse at 220 W. Broadway and began raving.

"You did this to me," he told the guard about 6:25 a.m., apparently referring to court officials, the Medical Examiner's Office spokeswoman said.

Then, Miller pulled out a handgun and fired one shot into his head. The blast killed him instantly, the spokeswoman said.

Miller apparently was depressed about a ruling on child support from a previous relationship, said San Diego Police spokesman Bill Robinson.

Two years after California overhauled its beleaguered child support system, state officials and advocates said Friday that the new program has exceeded expectations in collecting money for single-parent families.

With a record $2 billion a year now collected from parents ordered to pay child support, the new state Department of Child Support Services has more than doubled the average amount brought in per case, from $419 in fiscal 1996 to $1,015 in 2000, officials said. The 2001 figures are not yet available.

Just as important, they said, the new department has increased the number of cases in which paternity has been established in court, expanded the number of children covered by health insurance and enhanced the customer services that just a few years ago were a constant source of controversy. "For the first time in the history of California, child support enforcement embraces the idea of customer service," said Melanie Snider, a director of the Assn. for Children for Enforcement of Support, a national advocacy group.

Snider was among the child support advocates and state officials in Sacramento on Friday to mark the two-year anniversary of the new child support department, launched after years of complaints to the Legislature about the performance of California counties on the issue.

Before the department was created, district attorneys were responsible for running the child support agencies in all 58 counties and did so with varying degrees of success. But the lack of uniform regulations and poor overall performance--exemplified by a still poor collection record in Los Angeles County--led lawmakers to transform the way the state handles child support.

Lawmakers stripped control of the local programs from prosecutors and established new statewide performance standards, with an emphasis on collecting current support, rather than past due amounts, to help keep single-parent families intact and off public assistance.

"This is an example where a deeply entrenched bureaucracy can be changed and changed for the better," said Lenny Goldberg of the National Center for Youth Law at a news conference in Sacramento.

One result has been that about two-thirds of the state's current cases involve families that are not on welfare--a reversal of what state officials were reporting several years ago.

"What that means is that about two-thirds of the $2 billion [in collections] is going directly to families," instead of repaying county welfare systems, said Curtis L. Child, director of the state child support department. "So the magnitude of that number is important in looking at a program that is directed at family self-sufficiency."

In addition, he said, his department has saved the state more than $4 million by eliminating some local administrative costs.

The department has plowed savings into better customer service, including the addition of local ombudsmen throughout California to respond to complaints about local programs, he said.

The reorganization has helped to foster a new level of cooperation between child support advocates, fathers' rights groups and others in handling the thorny issue of child support collections, he said.

Said Assemblywoman Dion Aroner (D-Berkeley): "This is one of the few times when we get to look at a reform package and see the accomplishments come to fruition in such a short period of time."

The report was issued at the same time state officials released the results of a performance analysis of Los Angeles County's long-troubled child support collection program.

The analysis, by Denver-based Policy Studies Inc., concludes that the county's program has increased the amount collected from $212 million in 1997 to $425 million last year.

The report says the county has achieved an "impressive rate" of compliance with federal deadlines for child support cases, an indication that it is meeting deadlines for such actions as establishing paternity and obtaining court orders for collections.

But the study also found that the county's collection rate for current support was only 32%, "very low" compared with the state and nation. The latest state figures show that collections on current support in California averaged 44%, while nationwide the figure was 56%.

The county's performance in other key areas has also been poor.For example, the report found, Los Angeles County has an "extraordinarily high" rate of court orders obtained by default--79%--because those sued for child support fail, for whatever reasons, to appear in court. That default rate, the report says, not only raises serious questions about the fairness of the county's approach, but also gives the court orders for child support "less credibility and makes them harder to enforce."

AMHERST, N.H. - Less than 12 hours before his corporate plane slammed into his new $750,000 hillside home, Louis W. Joy III had been served with a restraining order, sought by his wife earlier that day, by two Amherst police officers. The order, which forced Joy to temporarily leave both his palatial home and his volatile marriage, accused him of domestic violence.

He left the house with a few belongings and without protest on Friday, police said. It is unknown where he spent the night.

But by daylight Saturday, after Joy told Nashua airport officials that he was flying south to Atlantic City, the plane buzzed his wooded Amherst neighborhood, banked steeply, then smashed into his empty home, destroying it.

No one on the ground was injured, and federal aviation officials are investigating. Police said they are aware of no suicide note.

The domestic violence petition filed by Joy's wife, Jo, on Friday was sealed early yesterday by a Milford District Court judge at the request of her attorney, David Lauren.

In asking to seal it, Lauren said the affidavit contains information that ''would prove extremely damaging'' to the couple's 8-year-old daughter. Publication, he said, would further traumatize the child, who ''is entitled to retain favorable memories of her father.''

The restraining order, which temporarily banished Louis Joy from the house at 19 High Meadow Lane in which he had lived with his wife and daughter for about four months, also awarded custody of the girl temporarily to his wife.

A hearing was scheduled for Sept. 24, but Louis Joy had not yet hired an attorney, according to Lauren's petition. Lauren did not return calls from the Globe yesterday.

Louis Joy, 43, a published author, business consultant, and motivational speaker, had founded the consulting firm Manufacturing Excellence Inc., to which the plane was registered.

He was remembered as a reclusive eccentric who nailed all the windows shut at his Newark, Del., home and became angry with a prospective buyer of the house when she asked if he would remove a fence.

Joy coauthored a book with his wife in 1993 titled ''Frontline Teamwork: One Company's Story of Success,'' which one synopsis said was ''guaranteed to capture the interest of front-line workers and help them contribute to the success of their organizations.''

Residents in the sprawling Amherst development of million-dollar homes said the plane buzzed the neighborhood around 7:30 Saturday morning before the engine went silent and the plane plowed into the house, avoiding a stand of trees no farther than 75 feet away.

Manchester Superior Court records showed no divorce filings involving the Joys, nor any lawsuits or other legal matters regarding Joy's firm, which he ran out of his home.

The chief medical examiner's office in Concord has not yet positively identified Louis Joy as the man killed in the crash. An official there said yesterday that the office was awaiting out-of-state medical records.

At the crash scene yesterday, the builder of the house, Ron Rees, said the crash and subsequent fire were so severe that the thick concrete foundation of the Colonial structure was cracked beyond repair.

''It's more surreal than anything else,'' Rees said after viewing the wreckage.

He said he had been in contact with Jo Joy, who he said is ''taking it fairly well, and as well as anyone can be expected.''

It took Rees's workers about a year to construct the custom-built dwelling to the couple's specifications. The $750,000 house had about 5,000 square feet of space.

The Joys moved in four months ago from Delaware. The long and winding driveway was paved only days before the crash.

''It was a beautiful home,'' Rees said.

This story ran on page B1 of the Boston Globe on 8/28/2001.

© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.

Recently, the public got a rare glimpse at the Draconian measures our government is taking in a desperate effort to make child support work. The occasion was the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision to imprison David Oakley if he fathered another child. Because he could not support his children, they reasoned, having another child amounted to child abuse Wisconsin v. Oakley, 629 N.W.2d 200 (Wis.2000). The ruling was so unusual, even liberal groups were stunned at the decision, a decision made on the slipperiest of slopes.

The obvious problem comes with equating child rearing with income. If Oakley can be legally prevented from having children because he doesn't earn enough money, should we start cracking down on low-income families?

Should we start a sterilization program for those who don't earn enough? And with news stories telling us it takes over $250,000 to raise a child born today, this means that anyone earning less than $14,700 per child, after taxes and after personal expenses are paid, would fall into this abuse category.

Another sticky point the Wisconsin Supreme Court missed was that of welfare mothers. Instead of jail, these women who bear children they can't support are offered money. If Oakley is guilty of child abuse because of the lack of money, what about the millions of welfare mothers? Welfare is a grant to the mother - but a loan to the father because fathers are responsible for repaying welfare in the form of child support. The father has no say (and often no knowledge) of the mothers applying for and getting welfare, but the
father is held responsible for repaying the government - complete with interest and fines.

The Wisconsin decision is just the most recent case in a long line of Draconian measures that threatens everyone's rights. The U. S.
Department of Health and Human Services has proposed that food stamps be denied to parents in arrears. Up to 65 percent of gross wages can be garnished for child support.

In Walton County Ga., the sheriff has proposed work camps for fathers who fail to pay child support. After DNA evidence freed a death row prisoner, the State of Texas charged him with failure to pay child support while on death row.

An American held hostage in an Iraqi POW camp was jailed one day after returning home to the U.S. for failing to pay child support while incarcerated. Patricia Hill of Umpqua, Ore., was charged with harboring a fugitive in a child support case. The fugitive? Her husband.

Privacy has gone out the door, as bureaucrats and politicians "get tough" in hopes of making this 26-year-old policy failure work. Government agencies scan everybody's bank account, through a program known as Financial Institution Data Matching, whether the person had to pay child support or not. The National Directory of New Hires searches all new employees within 20 days of their date of hire in hopes of finding a secret stash of money.

The Federal Parent Locator System tracks the whereabouts of noncustodial parents.

[59] C. Accessory Indictment and Conviction

[60] Hill argues that the indictment charging her with being an accessory after the fact is deficient as a matter of law because it did not specify the principal crime, Charlie's alleged violation of the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act. To support her argument, Hill relies on United States v. Innie .*fn29 Innie concerned whether the defendant's
prior conviction for being an accessory after the fact was a crime of violence that qualified him for sentencing as a career offender.*fn30 Because the crime underlying Innie's accessory offense was murder for hire, the Government argued that it should be considered a crime of violence. We agreed. In passing, we noted that because "[c]ommission of the underlying offense is a prerequisite for conviction as an accessory after the fact[,] .. . an indictment charging one as an accessory after the fact must plead the underlying offense as well as the accessory offense."*fn31

[61] In Innie, we were primarily concerned with ensuring, in a case in which a court planned to base a dramatic sentencing enhancement on a violent prior offense under the guidelines' career offender provisions, that a jury had found beyond a reasonable doubt that violence was an element of the crime.*fn32 The underlying offense was included in Innie's indictment.

[62] Thus, our statement there was dictum. Until now, whether the underlying offense is an essential element that must always be pleaded in an accessory indictment in order to provide defendants with constitutionally adequate notice has not been squarely presented to this court. We hold that the underlying offense is an essential element that
must be pleaded.

[63] The Supreme Court has held that an indictment is sufficient if: (1) it contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend; and (2) it enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.*fn33 These requirements reflect the rights guaranteed by the Sixth*fn34 and Fifth*fn35 Amendments, respectively.

[64] So long as a statute's words "fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished,"*fn36 an indictment that tracks the statute verbatim satisfies the above requirements. The question thus becomes, does the accessory statute set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense? We now hold that it does not.

[65] The accessory statute provides that "[w]hoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact."*fn37 The first part of this statute, "knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed"*fn38 is intentionally ambiguous, and for good reason:

[66] It would be tremendously burdensome and inefficient to have a separate accessory statute for every possible principal crime. The phrase "a crime against the United States " simply fills in a blank for administrative ease; obviously, however, a conviction based on something so vague would not be constitutional.

[67] If a defendant may not be convicted of being an accessory to "a crime against the United States," with no underlying crime specified, then she should not be able to be indicted for the same. If an element is necessary to convict, it is also necessary to indict, because elements of a crime do not change as criminal proceedings progress.
Thus, we concur with the First Circuit that "an indictment charging one as an accessory after the fact must plead the underlying offense, as well as the accessory offense."*fn39

[68] CONCLUSION

[69] Because we hold that it is constitutional for the United States to prosecute Hill for harboring her husband and because there was sufficient evidence to convict her of that crime, we affirm her harboring conviction. We reverse her conviction for being an accessory after the fact because her indictment was insufficient as a matter of law.

[70] AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for entry of
an amended judgment.

Continuing deficiencies in Los Angeles County's child support program also have prompted the state to take the unprecedented step of hiring an outside consulting firm to recommend improvements.

"L.A.'s performance continues to be a problem for the statewide program," Curtis L. Child, director of the California Department of Child Support Services, said Friday. "And when they have such a significant percentage of the statewide caseload, it affects the state's ability to do well on [federal] performance measures."

Within weeks, he said, Denver-based Policy Studies Inc. will begin a three-month examination of Los Angeles County's Bureau of Family Support Operations. The $250,000 study will coincide with the transfer of Los Angeles County's program from the district attorney's office to a new county Department of Child Support.

The transfer is part of the Legislature's 1999 overhaul of California's child support system, which was taken away from district attorneys after years of poor performance. Under new state regulations, each of the state's 58 counties will have a separate agency with responsibility for collecting child support for single parents and repaying the government for the cost of welfare for families with dependent children.

In Los Angeles County alone, state officials say, the transfer of the program from the district attorney's office to a new department will save $1.3 million in administrative overhead--money that will now be put back into child support programs.

But even as Los Angeles County moves toward a new program, the administration of its current child support collections remains controversial.

Last week, state director Child confirmed that officials are examining Los Angeles County's accounting practices after learning from child support advocates that the county had been double-counting collection numbers for past-due support.

The practice, officials said, was discovered in the quarterly reports sent to both the state and the county commission that oversees child support. And the financial consequences could be severe for California's child support program if the county's quarterly numbers are reflected in the yearly totals submitted to the federal government.

"Obviously, our concern is that we look at the [actual] quarterly numbers and there is a . . . drop from what was reported," Child said. "If that held, we would have some trouble. It would put us in jeopardy of losing our federal performance money . . . and that could mean tens of millions of dollars."

Wayne Doss, director of the Los Angeles County program, was unavailable for comment. A department spokeswoman, Yvonne Palmer, said the county's quarterly numbers have been corrected and will have no impact on its final year-end report.

Palmer added that the county has no problem with the hiring of the outside consulting firm. State officials have indicated that they may also use the firm to examine other counties, depending on what they find in Los Angeles. "We are not being singled out," she said.

As for the department's performance, Palmer said that its collections have increased by an annual average of 21% during the last several years--a figure that exceeds the statewide improvement rate. Although a previous audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the county's program needed improvements, Palmer said the report concluded that the caseload was "perhaps the most difficult . . . of any jurisdiction in the nation."

The most recent state reports to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services show that Los Angeles County remains far behind the rest of California in the child collection measurements established by the federal government.

In comparing the state's 58 counties for fiscal 2000, Los Angeles ranked 34th in cost-effectiveness, 45th in establishing paternity, 48th in collecting past-due child support, and 55th in both collecting current support and percentage of cases in which the county has obtained a court order for support.

"There has not been significant improvement in Los Angeles County's performance [in recent years]," said Child. "Now that we have a statewide program . . . we are looking at the reasons for Los Angeles County's historically lower performance."

Beyond the county's staffing and procedures, state and federal officials also are looking at the reliability of the child support collection data generated by the county Bureau of Family Support Operations.

Under new federal guidelines, the reliability of that information is subject to annual review on a state-by-state basis. Final numbers are not available, but preliminary reports suggest that Los Angeles County's data reliability falls well below the 90% required by federal regulations.

"It looks as if L.A.'s [data] reliability is a cause for concern," Child said.

If that proves true when the auditing is complete, Los Angeles County's performance would make the state subject to additional federal scrutiny. And if the data problems are not corrected, Child said, the federal government could cut the state's welfare funding by $72 million, to $144 million.

Against that backdrop, state officials hope the pending transition of child support programs to new county departments will provide a fresh start for improving services, including the reliability of performance statistics. "As part of the transition, data reliability is now a priority for us in the state," Child said. "We are concerned about two things: how well counties are doing and how accurate is their data."